Here is another example of why government run healthcare is not in YOUR best interest. This is an abstract for a presentation made at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference that was held in Amsterdam last week. ESHRE is THE authority for reproductive medicine in Europe. This is a small study but it is reflective of the big picture. Now some might argue that reproductive medicine is not the same as regular healthcare but in fact it is. Read the below and you will see that even though people have socialized medicine in these countries, they leave in droves to get better care OR to receive care at all due to rationing and restrictions place on them. Some of the restrictions include age (hear that old farts), use of donor tissue, and sexual orientation. This is what obongo wants to give you. This is what happens in other countries that the supporters of nationalized healthcare point to as examples. Sounds great to me…”hey you, out of line your are too old for treatment…”, “sorry but you have had you limit in treatments let someone else have a turn”…Sorry I like my healthcare just the way it is. The government and insurance companies have NO BUSINESS in making decisions about YOUR healthcare

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: A substantial number of European patients travel to other countries for fertility treatment, both because they think that they will receive better quality care abroad and in order to undergo procedures that are banned in their home country says a study of the subject launched at the 25th annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology today (Monday June 29). Study coordinator Dr. Françoise Shenfield, from UniversityCollegeHospital, London, UK, said that this was the first hard evidence of considerable fertility patient migration within Europe. “Until now we have only had anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon,” she said. “We think that our results will be of considerable value to patients, doctors, and policymakers.” During a one-month period, the ESHRE Task Force analyzed data from participating clinics in six European countries: Belgium, the CzechRepublic, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. Clinics were asked to provide questionnaires to patients coming from abroad for treatment. The questionnaires asked about their age, country of residence, reasons for traveling to another country for treatment, which treatment they had received, whether they had received information in their own language, how they had chosen the centre they were attending, and whether they had received reimbursement from their home country’s health system. A total of 1230 forms were completed and returned.“This may not seem to be a very high number,” said Dr. Shenfield, “but it reflects only one month of events in a limited number of centers in six countries. The total number of treatment cycles per year can be estimated by extrapolating our monthly data to a year and by assuming that the centers represent no more than half of the centers in each of the countries studied. This leads to an estimate of at least 20 000 to 25 000 cross-border treatment cycles per year in thesecountries. It is, however, difficult to derive a number of patients from these numbers as patients receive more than one cycle to obtain a pregnancy, the mean number depending on the type of treatment.”Almost two-thirds of the patients surveyed came from four countries, with the largest number coming from Italy (31.8%), followed by Germany (14.4%), the Netherlands (12.1%) and France (8.7%). In total, people from 49 countries crossed borders for fertility treatment.The main reason for going abroad for fertility was to avoid legal restrictions at home; 80.6% of the German patients surveyed have this as their primary reason, 71.6% of Norwegians, 70.6% of Italians, and 64.5% of French. Difficulties of access to treatment were cited more by patients from the UK (34.0%) than those from other countries.Age also played an important part in the decision to travel for treatment. The average age across all countries was over 37.5, but German and UK patients tended to have a much higher age profile with 51.1% of Germans being aged over 40 and 63.5% of British. Civil status also varied between countries; overall 69.9% of all women were married and only 6.1% single. But 82% of Italian women were married, while 50% of French women were cohabiting (often in same sex couples), and 43.4% of Swedish women were single.The majority of respondents (73%) were seeking assisted reproduction treatment (ART) only, as opposed to 22.2% intrauterine insemination (IUI), and 4.9% both ART and IUI. These figures also varied between one country and another; there was a majority of IUI treatments for French (53.3%) and Swedish (62.3%) patients, with a majority of ART for most other countries.Fertility treatment abroad is poorly reimbursed, says Dr. Shenfield. “Only 13.4% of the patients we surveyed received partial reimbursement, and as few as 3.8% were reimbursed totally for their treatment.”The most generous country was The Netherlands, with a partial or total reimbursement of 44.4% and 22.1% of patients. In France, patients could only be reimbursed for overseas treatment where there was a delay at home, and treatment that was illegal at home, for example for single women or homosexual couples, was not reimbursed at all.

07-06-2009, 12:06 PM

dnf777

Quote:

Originally Posted by badbullgator

Here is another example of why government run healthcare is not in YOUR best interest. This is an abstract for a presentation made at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) conference that was held in Amsterdam last week. ESHRE is THE authority for reproductive medicine in Europe. This is a small study but it is reflective of the big picture. Now some might argue that reproductive medicine is not the same as regular healthcare but in fact it is. Read the below and you will see that even though people have socialized medicine in these countries, they leave in droves to get better care OR to receive care at all due to rationing and restrictions place on them. Some of the restrictions include age (hear that old farts), use of donor tissue, and sexual orientation. This is what obongo wants to give you. This is what happens in other countries that the supporters of nationalized healthcare point to as examples. Sounds great to me…”hey you, out of line your are too old for treatment…”, “sorry but you have had you limit in treatments let someone else have a turn”…Sorry I like my healthcare just the way it is. The government and insurance companies have NO BUSINESS in making decisions about YOUR healthcare

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: A substantial number of European patients travel to other countries for fertility treatment, both because they think that they will receive better quality care abroad and in order to undergo procedures that are banned in their home country says a study of the subject launched at the 25th annual conference of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology today (Monday June 29). Study coordinator Dr. Françoise Shenfield, from UniversityCollegeHospital, London, UK, said that this was the first hard evidence of considerable fertility patient migration within Europe. “Until now we have only had anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon,” she said. “We think that our results will be of considerable value to patients, doctors, and policymakers.” During a one-month period, the ESHRE Task Force analyzed data from participating clinics in six European countries: Belgium, the CzechRepublic, Denmark, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. Clinics were asked to provide questionnaires to patients coming from abroad for treatment. The questionnaires asked about their age, country of residence, reasons for traveling to another country for treatment, which treatment they had received, whether they had received information in their own language, how they had chosen the centre they were attending, and whether they had received reimbursement from their home country’s health system. A total of 1230 forms were completed and returned.“This may not seem to be a very high number,” said Dr. Shenfield, “but it reflects only one month of events in a limited number of centers in six countries. The total number of treatment cycles per year can be estimated by extrapolating our monthly data to a year and by assuming that the centers represent no more than half of the centers in each of the countries studied. This leads to an estimate of at least 20 000 to 25 000 cross-border treatment cycles per year in thesecountries. It is, however, difficult to derive a number of patients from these numbers as patients receive more than one cycle to obtain a pregnancy, the mean number depending on the type of treatment.”Almost two-thirds of the patients surveyed came from four countries, with the largest number coming from Italy (31.8%), followed by Germany (14.4%), the Netherlands (12.1%) and France (8.7%). In total, people from 49 countries crossed borders for fertility treatment.The main reason for going abroad for fertility was to avoid legal restrictions at home; 80.6% of the German patients surveyed have this as their primary reason, 71.6% of Norwegians, 70.6% of Italians, and 64.5% of French. Difficulties of access to treatment were cited more by patients from the UK (34.0%) than those from other countries.Age also played an important part in the decision to travel for treatment. The average age across all countries was over 37.5, but German and UK patients tended to have a much higher age profile with 51.1% of Germans being aged over 40 and 63.5% of British. Civil status also varied between countries; overall 69.9% of all women were married and only 6.1% single. But 82% of Italian women were married, while 50% of French women were cohabiting (often in same sex couples), and 43.4% of Swedish women were single.The majority of respondents (73%) were seeking assisted reproduction treatment (ART) only, as opposed to 22.2% intrauterine insemination (IUI), and 4.9% both ART and IUI. These figures also varied between one country and another; there was a majority of IUI treatments for French (53.3%) and Swedish (62.3%) patients, with a majority of ART for most other countries.Fertility treatment abroad is poorly reimbursed, says Dr. Shenfield. “Only 13.4% of the patients we surveyed received partial reimbursement, and as few as 3.8% were reimbursed totally for their treatment.”The most generous country was The Netherlands, with a partial or total reimbursement of 44.4% and 22.1% of patients. In France, patients could only be reimbursed for overseas treatment where there was a delay at home, and treatment that was illegal at home, for example for single women or homosexual couples, was not reimbursed at all.

Gator,
I'm strongly opposed to a single-payer, gov't run system. In fact, if we're going to be working for gov't wages, I might as well move to Denmark, make the same money, and have free college for my kids and better retirement! As it is, they will want health care workers to sacrafice pay, but NOT recieve any of the benefits. Typical. (just pay me, I'll then pay for my own benefits!)

I'm curious as to what you think of the VA hospital system, and Tricare. They claim to be the largest health-care system and HMO respectively, both run by the gov't, and at least on the surface, appear to do reasonably well. Having been a part of that system, I can tell you it is not sustainable on a national level, with a real budget limitation, but that's my opinion.

07-06-2009, 02:58 PM

twall

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnf777

I'm curious as to what you think of the VA hospital system, and Tricare. They claim to be the largest health-care system and HMO respectively, both run by the gov't, and at least on the surface, appear to do reasonably well.

I don't have direct, personal experience with either. I do work in healthcare. I have had those who have used the VA system tell me they wish they had other options and were not always happy with their care or happy with the access to care. Those in rural areas have to travel which is not always possible. We don't know if they would have been any happier with care at other facilities. Sometimes, just having a choice makes people feel better about their benefits.

I work with an RN who has Tricare. She and her husband have over 30 years of active duty service combined. Some of the comments I have heard about Tricare are that they have a hard time finding providers who will accept it. And, while relatively inexpensive they pay more than what they were originally promised.

Tom

07-06-2009, 03:11 PM

Bill Billups

My experience with the VA was in training over 15 years ago. 2 different large VA hospitals and my impression is if all US hospitals were as efficient as the VA then we would have patients backed up for months waiting for surgery. Surgery ran from about 7am to 2 pm and could never do more than 2 cases per OR/day. The patients waited for months to get elective surgery and they did not choose their doc.

Bill

07-06-2009, 03:21 PM

badbullgator

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnf777

Gator,
I'm strongly opposed to a single-payer, gov't run system. In fact, if we're going to be working for gov't wages, I might as well move to Denmark, make the same money, and have free college for my kids and better retirement! As it is, they will want health care workers to sacrafice pay, but NOT recieve any of the benefits. Typical. (just pay me, I'll then pay for my own benefits!)

I'm curious as to what you think of the VA hospital system, and Tricare. They claim to be the largest health-care system and HMO respectively, both run by the gov't, and at least on the surface, appear to do reasonably well. Having been a part of that system, I can tell you it is not sustainable on a national level, with a real budget limitation, but that's my opinion.

I don't know anything about tricare and pretty much hear the same thing about the VA as the others have posted. I did work for a short time in a VA clinic and I can say they people that work there loved their jobs, but I also know of patients that have had to go on their own to get treatment in a timely fashion.
My biggest point is that the government cannot run a whorehouse (proven) and if you can't make money selling women and alcohol you probably can't run much of anything else. I don;t think healthcare is what our government is for...

07-06-2009, 07:37 PM

dnf777

Quote:

Originally Posted by badbullgator

I don't know anything about tricare and pretty much hear the same thing about the VA as the others have posted. I did work for a short time in a VA clinic and I can say they people that work there loved their jobs, but I also know of patients that have had to go on their own to get treatment in a timely fashion.
My biggest point is that the government cannot run a whorehouse (proven) and if you can't make money selling women and alcohol you probably can't run much of anything else. I don;t think healthcare is what our government is for...

yeah, I agree with the general opinions here. The VA is better than nothing, and some are actually pretty good, but many have doctors who don't speak english, and if the gov't set wages for docs, you won't find many at all.

When I was at Ft. Polk, we had 80 year old veterans drive in from east Texas just to find out no dermatologists in the area took tricare, and they had to drive then to houston. Looked good on paper, but not in practice.

I wish they would leave medicine up to the free market. Or if they're going to nationalize medicine, why not nationalize gasoline? Then we could all fill up for free! Nobody tells my plumber or mechanic what they're allowed to charge, and theyr'e doing fine, and we don't have a plumbing crisis.

07-07-2009, 12:05 AM

Cody Covey

grandpa just recently had a heart attack and his surgery was paid for (most anyway i think) but he had to wait 2-3 weeks to be approved for a follow up appointment to make sure he was okay after they put the stint in. Just a small example, got wait for the lines on the national level

07-07-2009, 08:42 AM

badbullgator

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnf777

yeah, I agree with the general opinions here. The VA is better than nothing, and some are actually pretty good, but many have doctors who don't speak english, and if the gov't set wages for docs, you won't find many at all.

When I was at Ft. Polk, we had 80 year old veterans drive in from east Texas just to find out no dermatologists in the area took tricare, and they had to drive then to houston. Looked good on paper, but not in practice.

I wish they would leave medicine up to the free market. Or if they're going to nationalize medicine, why not nationalize gasoline? Then we could all fill up for free! Nobody tells my plumber or mechanic what they're allowed to charge, and theyr'e doing fine, and we don't have a plumbing crisis.

I see that as a "class warfare" kind of thing. Docs make very good money and a lot of people don't like that, but at the same time they want the best doctors to take care of them (also funny that some plumbers make nearly as much as some docs, but people don't cry half as much about that). I feel that if you charge a fair price I do not care how much you make and that is true of anything. I really feel that insurance is more of the probelm than the cost of medicine is. The only ones making real money on healthcare now is the insurance companies. I have said it on here before, we comstantly toy with the idea of dropping ALL insurance and dropping our prices by 35%. We would make MORE that way and the patients would end up paying far less, but insurance has everyone by the short hairs. If we don't take it the guy across the street will and people will still go to him becasue they think they are paying less by having insurance coverage, but really after the premiums and co-pays it is just about the same. I do think insurance is needed BUT no in the form we have now. Insurance should not run medicine and should not set prices for services.